Gun Violence Restraining Order bill – one of the worst gun control laws in the history of these United States. As reported here ad nauseum, under a GVRO the police can confiscate a gun owner’s firearms on the order of a judge without any prior notice to the gun owner. Who must then prove that he or she’s not a danger to the family member who claimed the gun owner was too dangerous to own guns.

What about innocent until proven guilty? Fuhgeddaboutit. CT’s pro-gunners are kvetching; odds are it won’t do any good.

Gun rights activists contend Malloy’s proposal would remove guns without due process and create potential for abuse. [Republican state Rep. Arthur] O’Neill said current law would potentially lead to weapons being removed faster. Also, he pointed out how the current law, passed after the deadly workplace shooting at the Connecticut Lottery Corporation headquarters, includes safeguards for gun owners. For example, firearms cannot be seized unless there is a complaint filed to a superior court judge that there’s probable cause to believe the person presents a danger to themselves or others.

Not to mention the fact that gun owners [currently] have the right to appear before the judge in their own defense. You know: due process.

Due process is a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Steamrolling over that right to appease the civilian disarmament industry, without any proof that a GVRO would reduce domestic violence, should make any patriotic American ill. This in the Constitution State.

43 Responses to Giffords to Wave Bloody Shirt for CT Gun Violence Restraining Order Law

Man, come on. It’s this kinda garbage that gets pulled onto a 3 second sound byte on CNN. Yes, she’s constantly putting herself in the spotlight and opening herself up for this sort of criticism, and yes she’s dead wrong with her policies. But she isn’t even doing it anymore. She’s a puppet at this point. And taking shots at her based upon her attack make us all look like total tools.

No gun control advocate, and I mean absolutely none from Feinstein to Bloomberg would elicit a positive response from me if they were to be injured. Their politics suck and I don’t like what they’re doing, but can we not make fun or revel in the injuries of our opponents? We’re better than that.

But we can’t hold her personally responsible for what she’s doing right now! Disparage the husband, call for his head on a platter, that’s one thing.

This is like finding a mentally challenged kid and kicking them when their down on the ground. There isn’t any sport to this. The only thing you’re accomplishing is opening the whole community up to a one sided media shaming so you can circle-jerk your hate. It’s ridiculous.

Whether you’re right or wrong on principle, if you believe for a second that the kind of guerrilla tactics which actually work on the undecideds (really, they’re the only ones who matter; the rest of us are already entrenched on one side or the other) include ridiculing a mental disability caused by being shot in the head, you’re part of the problem for our side, not part of the solution. We have too many people on our side of this issue handing the other side political ammo to use against them. You’re not fighting them with this type of junk; you’re just making yourself feel better by venting, all the while hurting the cause. That’s right. You’re helping the bad guys. Ridicule the arguments she, i.e., her husband, is making, but don’t make an attack on her disability. Some people would rather express outrage than actually win the battle of public opinion.

I was not aware that taste was a factor in the confiscation movement. Sometimes there is no tasteful description of their methods. We just have to do the best we can. Spend your happiness like ya stole it.

Making fun of somebody’s disability is decidedly bad form and a very weak way to present an argument. You don’t kick a cripple and then try to claim a superior moral position. Despite her injuries, Giffords is hardly a naive player and is, in fact, a very savvy activist. She knows exactly what she’s doing. Cheap shots seriously underestimate her effectiveness.

She is the perfect choice to help influence politicians, because she was one of them.
They look at what’s left of her and think “could one of these gun nuts do that to me?”.
With a casual eye you can see how ridiculous and shameful it is to use her as a puppet, but if you see the end game you realize just how deep the sickness runs.

The anti-gun crowd has not moved far enough back from the limelight! Between the M855 ammo, background checks, and their hypocritical attempt at taking our guns, they are still obvious. They should keep backing up! Sooner or later they’ll get to where they need to be. LOL
I hate to say it but the anti-gunners have done it. I no longer consider any other issues, when I vote a 100% pro-gun ticket. I do not let politicians sway me by their rhetoric. Their actions on this issue decide my votes.
Yes I want to protect MY country from it’s enemies, both foreign and domestic.
Is the current administration an enemy?

It’s really too bad the psycho shot Giffords and gave her a new public platform. I knew someone who had lived in her district before the shooting, who said she had been on her way out as the district turned more conservative and was beginning to reject her positions. Left to her own devices she would be a non-entity now.

Due Process? Are you kidding? By Any Means Necessary is the new modus operandi for most of the liberal side of the aisle. Until more of the public realizes the dangers in that, we have dark times ahead for all humanity.

If only the Uncle Fester looking numbnuts who shot her had to pass a background check. Oh if only.
Oh, but with this law the nine or so people who knew Loughner and noticed his odd behavior and later spoke about how they didnt want him around
but failed to mention it to anyone in any position to do anything about it would have done exactly the opposite of what they had done
and Loughner’s guns would have been taken from him.

The only people who are going to take advantage of a law like this are people looking to screw somebody over.

Passing such laws is the quickest way to ensure that someone is going to assert their second and fourth amendment-protected rights at the end of the barrel of the gun that the state is trying to seize unconstitutionally. I have a feeling that such outcome is exactly what the disarmament brigade want to happen.

Chip,
I agree, it seems they have no moral code whatsoever. However the devil is always in the details and that leaves our folks in blue on the front line of this abomination. Some will refuse. Others will follow blindly. And sooner or later one of them will be shot at. It seems that the inmates are running the asylum and no manner of rational discussion can stop them.
“Cry ‘Havoc!’, and let slip the dogs of war”.

Gifford and her husband are absolute filth! As for Malloy, why would the citizens of Connecticut even have allowed that moron to get back into office. You had the opportunity to throw him out of office this past election. The only way you are going to be able to secure you’re rights is by getting all of these socialist democrats out!

The other option is federal preemption. For the moment, we still have the votes to make firearms an exclusive domain for the federal government. It would simplify the battle and would keep the liberals from passing hundreds of local laws that we have to take on individually.

This would be the worse thing and completely against state’s rights. I support the 2A with every bone in my body, but I do not want the over reaching Federal government to have sole discrimination regarding gun laws. State laws can be changed easily.

The more I see the more I start to sympathize with Ayn Rand’s thesis that once things get too bad, you just have to let Rome burn. This is just one more thing to add to the giant pile of ridiculous, unnecessary, expensive, and exploitative laws and procedures that the State has put into place over the years. Just off the top of my head, price controls which increase food and alcohol costs, energy policies that have given us some of the highest energy costs in the country, significantly increasing tuition and fees at state colleges while spending billions to put up some new buildings, spending hundreds of millions building a busway to nowhere, an out of control probate system that exists solely to steal from you, … the list goes on. And the sad thing is, Mallow and company keep trying to insist, “Look how much better we’re doing!”. Everybody is making excuses like in this article:http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Study-More-people-leaving-state-than-moving-in-5112610.php

Moving companies are telling everybody that people are moving out, and all people can give are excuses like this:
“Still, the report offers a narrow window into demographic trends and it’s of questionable use to researchers and policy makers. The data also offers inconsistencies of scope. For instance, Atlas moved 343 customers in or out of North Dakota, but 14,505 in or out of California for a 53 percent “inbound rate.””

They then have to reluctantly admit – while still trying to prove and unprovable point – that other data shows we’re lagging badly as well.

“By that measure, Connecticut isn’t doing so badly. Between 2000 and 2010, the state’s population actually grew by 4.9 percent to about 3.57 million — although, to be fair, the national growth rate was about twice that high and Texas’ population ballooned by 21 percent to 25.1 million.”

Connecticut is collapsing under the weight of its inept government, and everybody is looking for an exit. I highly doubt things will get better here until the state is well and truly bankrupt.

The states behind the iron curtain like to boast that their population is stable or actually growing slightly. Which may be true. But those moving out tend to be tax payers (especially middle and upper middle class), whereas those moving in tend to be welfare colonists (especially in California). They keep raising taxes on producers to provide more incentives to not work, and are constantly dumfounded when revenue goes down while entitlement expenditures rise.

CT being CT they’re probably going to pass something. Best case may be a push to include a provision making an accuser paying a hefty fine for a false complaint, and for any legal fees incurred, and liable for any damages incurred that MIGHT have been prevented should they be attacked/robbed.

Gun violence restraining order’s are a bad idea. In america we “were” innocent until proven guilty. Gun violence restraining orders immediately assume the accused is guilty, their house is searched, their stuff is seized and stolen by the state, then they have a very short period to appeal. Anyone can get a restraining order. The legislators say that the one requesting the restraining order is a sworn document. Fine. But the burden of proof is not on the requester of the restraining order. So they are innocent until proven guilty – but the one on the receiving end is guilty until proven innocent. There is almost no way to prove the requester is guilty of perjury. As a result, there is great potential for abuse by both the state and people who don’t like you:

Ex-girl friend knows you like shooting sports? GVRO (Gun violence restraining order) requested. Police show up, search your place for guns, take all your guns and ammo, find a single marijuana joint that someone threw in your closet during your last “house party.” And you are under arrest. The charges of drugs and guns are going to look really good on your record. Especially when you try to get a job.

Are you a police officer? Can’t get a warrant to search a home? Just tell any random street rat that owes you – to get a GVRO. Now you can take his stuff and search his home. Good for you.

GVRO are unconstitutional:

4th amendment: Prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause as determined by a neutral judge or magistrate.

A “accusation” from a person requesting a GVRO is proof of nothing. The police can search your home and take your things based on the mere accusation for the request of the GVRO.

6th Amendment: Protects the right to a fair and speedy public trial by jury, including the rights to be notified of the accusations, to confront the accuser, to obtain witnesses and to retain counsel.

The victim of the GVRO doesn’t get to have a trial or even to confront the accuser before his house is searched and his stuff taken. And most importantly – the accused has their stuff seized and taken when they have broken no law – and never even saw a trial.

Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the Due Process Clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law. Taking someones stuff without them breaking a law, going through a trial, is a blatant violation of due process.

I’m going to go full Godwin here and compare this legislation with Nazi policies. They are basically the same. Search and seizure without a warrant. No trial. No evidence. No due process. Only a mere accusation, from anyone, with nothing to back it up is required. Cops walk in, look around, take their stuff. Full Nazi.

The statist liberals don’t care about your inalienable God given rights, they don’t believe in that. The only thing they care about is getting more power for themselves. They will use any excuse to do that, safety, the environment, equality, social justice, tolerance, and every other idol they can think of.